Middle East Revolution Thread

People seem to forget that post-Gaddafi studies in Libya showed that the rebels killed more people there during the revolution than the govt did.Look at the beheading of the women in Gaddafis convoy.

Any talk about intervention in Syria is stupid, it's just not going to happen, period (Russia/China's veto will not change in this regard). All the pundits/journos/diplomats/random spokespeople are doing by talking about potential/theoretical interventions in Syria is giving people false hope & thus causing more death. While talk of prosecuting Assad for war crimes is just going to encourage Assad to do more of the same, because in Assad's mind talk of walk crimes is just telling him he's got nothing to lose by following the same tactics & everything to lose if he stops. Remember he still has about 50% of population with him (apparently stats say 55%). All the numerous religious minorities in Syria prefer secular Baathism to a militant Sunni govt, same in regards many nominal Syrian Sunnis too (Even though there's to some extent a Alawite ruling clique, the fact is most Syrian Baathists are nominal Sunnis).

Gez just a couple of days ago we had Libyan Wahhabis rampaging through the large war cementaries in Tobruk smashing German, Italian & British Commonwealth headstones, simply because they assumed the dead buried there are all christians (maybe most are, but it's irrilivent)

Never mind the fact the there's even less freedom for the majority in Saudi Arabia (the women) than Syria.

Right... Syria is one of the region's poorest countries, while Saudi Arabia is one of the richest. They just injected over $100 billion to boost their economy. Meanwhile, Syria is running out of basic foods.

Never mind the fact the there's even less freedom for the majority in Saudi Arabia (the women) than Syria.

Right... Syria is one of the region's poorest countries, while Saudi Arabia is one of the richest. They just injected over $100 billion to boost their economy. Meanwhile, Syria is running out of basic foods.

I don't see anyone looking even skinny on any Syrian footage on the news, do you?

BTW just ask any woman who's been to both Syria & Saudi Arabia where they felt more free. I doubt you get one saying Saudi Arabia. Well as long as one stays out of Homs. You know Saudi Arabia's only rich in regards the autocracy, it's not the most equitable place you know. the regional masses are not much better off there than the regional masses are anywhere else in most of the middle east, plus they have religious police running roughshot over them enforcing uncountable restrictions from the most petty to the most extreme. We would all be better off if H Bush partitioned Saudi Arabia by giving the Hijaz back to the Hashimites & the rest of Saudi Arabia to Saddam Hussein, instead of attacking Iraq. Remember it's the Saudi's who financed the Wahhabi attack on the WTC in NY & Saddam was was so good at killing Wahhabis/Salufis that there were no Muslem extremists with any power in Iraq till the US created a power vacume by taking taking out the Baathists there.

Women fighting for the right to drive is one thing, a government torturing and massacring thousands of civilians is a whole other level. But you seem to be one of those people who supports dictators like Saddam, Assad, Mubarak; regimes based on terror... which would explain why you're throwing in conspiracy theories about Saudi Arabia directly causing 9/11. I guess that's fine, many people lose out when these regimes collapse. Thankfully most of the world takes a different viewpoint. Assad will be first, Iran will be next.

One side will always be beastly to the other. That's the nature of the region, culture, and dominant religion. Don't forget those regimes had LARGE numbers of supporters who had Big Fun doing their thing. Assad isn't personally shelling Homs. Syrians are shelling Homs and doing everything which supports that shelling.

Saddam, Assad, and Mubarak on their own wouldn't have been more than lone gunmen. It's "group on group" conflict.

They are all backward, all bad, and best for the modern world if they slaughter each other and wreck the region which is the only way to thoroughly disrupt it and pave the way for change. Russia was improved by its internal conflicts, China even more so.

Backward human obstacles have to go and should not be mourned. Such processes weaken the hold of religion, monarchies, and dictatorships which progress is worth any level of violence to accomplish. We forget how much Europe (for example) has improved by the destruction of monarchies and dictators. Well worth the wars which got that done.

Women fighting for the right to drive is one thing, a government torturing and massacring thousands of civilians is a whole other level. But you seem to be one of those people who supports dictators like Saddam, Assad, Mubarak; regimes based on terror... which would explain why you're throwing in conspiracy theories about Saudi Arabia directly causing 9/11. I guess that's fine, many people lose out when these regimes collapse. Thankfully most of the world takes a different viewpoint. Assad will be first, Iran will be next.

Just saying religious despots like the Saudis are worse than the secular despots of the Arab Nationalist era & are even worse than the later psuedo-Arab Nationalist despots too, especially in regards axcessing a cold beer. The worst thing Sadat/Mubarack did was let thousands of Egyptian Salufis out of jail in the 80's 'n 90's. they should've just killed them. The only good Salufi/Waahabi is a dead one.

& I don't support any of those people you named, even though the're all better by a country mile than Saud. Mind you rebelling against Assad is just stupid & encouraging them to rebell is stupid too, because there will be no intervention in Syria never - Russia & China will make sure of that. The best thing the rebels can do to minimise the pain & heartache in Syria would be by all of them committing suicide, so it doesn't keep dragging on .

BTW there's no doubt at all that the Saudis channeled millions into the Taliban & Al Qaeda over the last few decades. It's a well known fact that the Saudis passed millions onto UBL on condition that he ceded attacks within Saudi Arabia & instead caused havoc elseware. This agreement lasted about 5 years. But for the Saudis there would be no Taliban. What the Saudis have done is basically bribed just about every mosque & Islamic school they could on the planet to be more extreme than they otherwise would - "if you want our petro dollars you much teach Islam our Wahhabi way". Which is why you even have Islamic youth in Australia that now think mainstream Islam has been corrupted by the west & Wahhabi shit is real Islam, when the reality was that 40 years ago Burqas were uncommon in Afghanistan & the largest Islamic association in Indonesia said it was alright for muslems to even drink beer as long as they didn't drink enough to get drunk. Where as now you have all these bullys in East Java who act like they're Saudi religious police too.

In regards women in Saudi-Arabia it's not just about driving, it's about every aspect of there lives. compared to women in Baathist Iraq or Baathist Syria, both of which even had women in parliament & the top strata of the govt, party & military, the women in Saudi Arabia are virtually slaves & can't even leave the home by themselves. To think it's just about the right to drive shows how ignorant you are on this matter. & remember women are the majority.

Women fighting for the right to drive is one thing, a government torturing and massacring thousands of civilians is a whole other level. But you seem to be one of those people who supports dictators like Saddam, Assad, Mubarak; regimes based on terror... which would explain why you're throwing in conspiracy theories about Saudi Arabia directly causing 9/11. I guess that's fine, many people lose out when these regimes collapse. Thankfully most of the world takes a different viewpoint. Assad will be first, Iran will be next.

What has Egypt gained from replacing one general with another? What will Egypt gain from replacing a general with an imam?

From where I stand, there isn't much difference between Iran and KSA. Sure they hate each other's guts, but that doesn't stop either one of them from hating me as well.

I'm not exactly sure why the geopolitics of an entire region of the world, with complex national priorities, populations, and motivations, should be reduced to being evaluated only on the basis of where you stand.

Especially when where you "stand" reduces to a pretty simply encapsulated: "the only thing that matters is that they all hate me".

From where I stand, there isn't much difference between Iran and KSA. Sure they hate each other's guts, but that doesn't stop either one of them from hating me as well.

I'm not exactly sure why the geopolitics of an entire region of the world, with complex national priorities, populations, and motivations, should be reduced to being evaluated only on the basis of where you stand.

Especially when where you "stand" reduces to a pretty simply encapsulated: "the only thing that matters is that they all hate me".

Well, it's worked for Israel since 1947 and for America for roughly that long as well. Don't knock something that works...

I don't think it's really worked for either, in the long term. It's worked for some particular sub-groups within those countries, sure, so far. But the kind of festering regional alienation that it's left in its wake.. well.. I don't know if one can say at this point whether the policies adopted were the wisest in the long run.

I don't think it's really worked for either, in the long term. It's worked for some particular sub-groups within those countries, sure, so far. But the kind of festering regional alienation that it's left in its wake.. well.. I don't know if one can say at this point whether the policies adopted were the wisest in the long run.

Of course they're self-serving and defeatist policies in the long run. But who the hell thinks or acts with the long run in consideration?

Besides, it makes people (not a person, but people) feel better to believe that their "enemy" eats babies and grows horns during full moons, and, more importantly "hates" them. It's much more difficult to believe and accept the truth that the "enemy" is made of real people, just like you, who just want to live their lives and have the same fears, hopes, and dreams, that you do, with some mild variances in their ends and means based on life experiences and opportunities at their disposal.

Barmaglot, the people of Iran, or KSA, don't "hate" you. Some who have a vested interest in fomenting ridiculousness in others might, but the most vocal ones are generally doing so for political posturing or economic gain. And yes, that affects some people who choose to listen. But most of those people, as strange as this may sound to you, just want to wake up in the morning, earn some money, have their families be safe, and live to a ripe old age. Despite where they live, how they worship, what language they speak, or what they hear or are told by their televisions.

I think you're capable of overcoming your attribution bias, that for some reason you and people like you are unique and diverse snowflakes, but others couldn't possibly because they "hate" you. Give it a shot.

I'd rather live with my family, with the people who are closest to me, regardless of my gender.

Fuck that. I'm mobile. Those who want my company can follow me if they want it enough.

The US was founded and sustained by people who had the nads to GTFO when things got too toxic.

Given the three choices I'd pick Israel as the least restrictive to my freedoms since it's all about me, but that's not an endorsement. I've been to KSA repeatedly on a friendly basis, and since Iran is worse I don't care if they both get used for atmospheric testing. The religious have nothing to fear from death so literally no one should regret their meeting their Sky Fairy in Paradise. Inactive superstitionists are still "enablers", and inaction is a choice. I take the "George Carlin" view on them killing each other.

All this talk of Syria has made me a bit curious - where are now all those people who keep demanding that we hand Golan Heights (along with local residents) to the tender loving care of Mr. Bashar al-Assad?

All this talk of Syria has made me a bit curious - where are now all those people who keep demanding that we hand Golan Heights (along with local residents) to the tender loving care of Mr. Bashar al-Assad?

Yes, you're right. It's very good that it was kept out of the hands of someone who was a toddler at the time it was occupied. He might have kept too many of his stuffed animals there.

How big a backyard do you have? It must be huge with all the strawmen you need to keep there.

Let me ask you this - what is Israel doing to prevent human suffering in Syria? I'm not implying that they have any special mandate to do so, but your posts seem to indicate that Israel constantly maintains a moral high ground, so I'd be interested to hear all about the wonderful things your country is doing to make things better for innocent Syrians.

All this talk of Syria has made me a bit curious - where are now all those people who keep demanding that we hand Golan Heights (along with local residents) to the tender loving care of Mr. Bashar al-Assad?

Their goal was and remains to destroy Israel. The residents are of no account except as game pieces to anyone but themselves.

All this talk of Syria has made me a bit curious - where are now all those people who keep demanding that we hand Golan Heights (along with local residents) to the tender loving care of Mr. Bashar al-Assad?

They're probably more focused on the massacres happening in Syria. What, you're accusing people of being reasonable about circumstances as they change? You know that's what reasonable people do, right? Territorial integrity and occupation by a foreign nation is not that pressing in the face of local massacres.

Despite whatever you may believe about people who have problems with Israel's foreign policy, they aren't actually all people who make all their evaluations on some hypothetical burning hatred for your homeland. You should really reconsider that paranoia. I appreciate the ability of balanced individuals, unlike single minded partisans, to develop positions that are based on more than simple unwavering support (or hatred) for some particular country.

What, you're accusing people of being reasonable about circumstances as they change?

Hmmm. Was the Bashar al-Assad replaced by some other Bashar al-Assad while I wasn't looking?

Don't think so. I think it's the same one Israel is willing to tolerate as long as he's not a territorial threat.

Personally, I think the whole massacre thing is kind of more important than territorial or occupational issues at this point. But hey, I don't evaluate everything on the basis of whether it benefits one nation or hurts one particular nation. You may not believe in having more nuance than that in your positions, but I certainly do.

But sure, I'll give you that point. Israel doesn't massacre Syrians like Assad does. It just steals land, perpetuates refugee classes and implements racist social policies. Here: have a cookie.

The only context in which your posts make sense is one in which you've built up a victim complex where anybody that disagrees with Israel's policies is some partisian who "has it in" for your people, and somehow makes that the basis for all their evaluations on all things. It's more reflective of your position than anything else. It's usually the hardened partisans who can't but help see all disagreement as partisanship of the other color.

The only context in which your posts make sense is one in which you've built up a victim complex where anybody that disagrees with Israel's policies is some partisian who "has it in" for your people, and somehow makes that the basis for all their evaluations on all things. It's more reflective of your position than anything else. It's usually the hardened partisans who can't but help see all disagreement as partisanship of the other color.

Please explain to me the simple mathematical fact of the United Nations Human Rights Council issuing fully half of its country-specific resolutions against Israel. Are you going to sit here with a straight face and claim that Israel is responsible for half of human rights violations in the world? Because from where I stand, it looks more like the so-called 'human rights' bodies are formed and used as a pretext to attack Israel, and don't give a shit about human rights where Israel isn't involved.

This whole perpetual Israel victim-hood attitude really needs to die out. So the crimes of the Assad regime in Syria somehow excuse the crimes of Israeli government? Most reasonable people would not fall for such cognitive dissonance. Look at the region, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, all in transition to new regimes. There is no going back to the status quo. I'm sure most countries realize how absurd a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is, one involving less than 10 million people, and somehow continues defying all reason. Well, victim-hood has been a successful strategy for the past 50 years, who knows, maybe it will continue for another 50, but I doubt it.

Wait. What's your point here. That Israel shouldn't have to give back that land because Assad massacres Syrians? I thought the argument was that it was for the protection of Israel? Or has it always been about Assad massacring people and that's why Israel wanted to keep that land, to protect the Syrians from Assad? What exactly are you arguing here?

I'm confused as to what you're trying to do.

1. You asked "where are all the 'Golan heights should be given back people'?" in a thread about the revolutions in various middle eastern countries.2. I answered that they're probably more focused on the whole massacre thing happening in Syria. (Didn't even mention the fact that this is not really a thread about Israel)3. You post some nonsensical one-liner about Assad, then complain about some countries in the UN voting a particular way in a UN resolution about the Golan heights.

It seems like you're somewhat miffed that something is happening in middle eastern nations that's not somehow about Israel, and that this thread is not somehow focused on how the shit that's happening relates to Israel.

This is a problem you seem to be trying to fix in this thread, by trying to reintroduce some non-sequitur "but, remember everyone, Israel is a victim!" statement in a thread about a happening in the middle east that has nothing to do with Israel.

I'm sorry that you're offended that this story doesn't have some built-in narrative that Israel somehow fits into. That's just the way things are. There are things and developments in the middle east that aren't primarily about Israel. Some UN vote on the golan heights and the Assad's massacres in Syria are in independent. Deal with it.

2. I answered that they're probably more focused on the whole massacre thing happening in Syria. (Didn't even mention the fact that this is not really a thread about Israel)

Are they? Apparently not, as they've just voted to place over thirty thousand people into the midst of a massacre. How does this agree with the "Human Rights Council's" mission statement of "strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and addressing situations of human rights violations", I have no idea. Of course that vote is completely meaningless, as Israel won't even deign to wipe its collective ass with the paper it's printed on, but that's beside the point.

2. I answered that they're probably more focused on the whole massacre thing happening in Syria. (Didn't even mention the fact that this is not really a thread about Israel)

Are they? Apparently not, as they've just voted to place over thirty thousand people into the midst of a massacre.

Your neurosis is amusing.

Barmaglot, trying to be coy wrote:

All this talk of Syria has made me a bit curious - where are now all those people who keep demanding that we hand Golan Heights (along with local residents) to the tender loving care of Mr. Bashar al-Assad?

Let's rephrase that:

<Barmaglot>I want to talk about Israel and how Israel is a victim and everybody in the UN hates Israel, so I'm going to ask a vaguely phrased question that seems like it's about the posters in this thread that's not really a question about the posters in this thread so I can use the response to that as a jump-off to introduce some independent UN vote that doesn't have anything to do with the revolutions going on in various middle eastern nations that this thread is about so I can whine a bit more about how Israel is the victim and how the UN hates it.</Barmaglot>

Oh look, you did it! Here: have another cookie.

I just imagine you sitting there, getting somewhat agitated and vexed. "They're talking about the middle east, but it's not about Israel! This must be rectified! The middle east is about Israel and how Israel is a victim!"

Yet another example of I approve of the Obama/Panetta direct action method for liquidating enemy troops. Conventional incarceration doesn't neutralise unconventional fighters. "Catch and release" is for game fish.